- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:35:57 -0400
- To: martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
- CC: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com, david@dbooth.org, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Martin, [SNIP] > > > As Kingsley said - deceptively simple solutions are cheap in the > beginning but can be pretty costly in the long run. I meant: "Deceptively Simple" is good. While "Simply Simple" is bad due to inherent architectural myopia obscured by initial illusion of cheapness etc.. > > What made the Web so powerful is that its Architecture is extremely > well-thought underneath the first cover of simplicity. That's what I meant by: "Deceptively Simple", architectural apex is narrow (simple) while the base is broad (a pyramid) :-) > Exactly the opposite of "I will use this pragmatic pattern until it > breaks" but instead That's what I meant by: "Simple Simple", architectural apex is broad while the base is narrow (think inverted pyramid). > "architectural beauty for eternity". Yes! That what you get with: "Deceptively Simple" :-) Kingsley > > Just look at the http specs. The fact that you can do a nice 303 is > because someone in the distant past very cleverly designed a protocol > goes well beyond the pragmatic "I have a URL (sic!) and want to fetch > the Web page in HTML (sic!)". > > So when being proud of being the "pragmatic guys" keep in mind that > nothing is as powerful in practice as something that is theoretically > consistent. > > Best > Martin > > > Michael Hausenblas wrote: >> Martin, >> >> >>> (moving this to LOD public as suggested) >>> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >>> General note: I am quite unhappy with a general movement in parts of the >>> LOD community to clash with the OWL world even when that is absolutely >>> unnecessary. It is just a bad engineering practice to break with >>> existing standards unless you can justify the side-effects. And this >>> stubborn "i don't care what the OWL specs says" pattern is silly, in >>> particular if the real motivation of many proponents of this approach is >>> that they don't want or cannot read the OWL specs. >>> >> >> I don't think it is particular helpful to insult people, to utter >> imputations and judge a book by its cover. If we can agree to stop using >> such terminology I'm more than happy to continue the discussion. >> >> >>> On the other hand - what is your pain with using RDFa in a way so that >>> the extracted RDF model is equivalent to the model from an RDF/XML or N3 >>> serialization? Why this absolutely arbitrary "we LOD guys don't like >>> owl:import ( we don't like OWL anyway, you know?), so we simply omit it" >>> behavior? >>> >>> It is just silly to break with established standards just for saving 1 - >>> 2 triples. >>> >> >> Ok, so, again, for the chaps who didn't get the entire story. Martin >> champions the use of owl:import (and wants to see it written down as a good >> practice?) in linked data. >> >> My take on this is as follows: when one takes the linked data principles and >> applies them in practice (esp. referring to #2, here) there are naturally a >> dozens implementation choices as the principles simply leave room for >> interpretation. >> >> The people here know me from the RDFa TF, from the AWWSW TF and last but not >> least from the LOD community as a simple-minded, pragmatic guy, I hope ;) >> >> So, my hunch would be: the market will make the final decision, not a Martin >> Hepp and also not a Michael Hausenblas. If people think this is a clever >> idea, they will use it when publishing linked data. AFAIK, to date the usage >> of owl:import in linked data is close to non-existing (even in pre-LOD times >> it seemed to be not very common [1]). >> >> Concluding, I'd propose - respecting the nature of good *practice* - once we >> notice a serious usage of owl:import in LOD data, we may want to rehash this >> topic. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> [1] http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2007/06/15/how-owlimport-is-used/ >> >> > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------- > martin hepp > e-business & web science research group > universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen > > e-mail: mhepp@computer.org > phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 > fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 > www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) > http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) > skype: mfhepp > twitter: mfhepp > > Check out the GoodRelations vocabulary for E-Commerce on the Web of Data! > ======================================================================== > > Webcast: > http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/webcast/ > > Talk at the Semantic Technology Conference 2009: > "Semantic Web-based E-Commerce: The GoodRelations Ontology" > http://tinyurl.com/semtech-hepp > > Tool for registering your business: > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/tools/goodrelations-annotator/ > > Overview article on Semantic Universe: > http://tinyurl.com/goodrelations-universe > > Project page and resources for developers: > http://purl.org/goodrelations/ > > Tutorial materials: > Tutorial at ESWC 2009: The Web of Data for E-Commerce in One Day: A Hands-on Introduction to the GoodRelations Ontology, RDFa, and Yahoo! SearchMonkey > > http://www.ebusiness-unibw.org/wiki/GoodRelations_Tutorial_ESWC2009 > > > > -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 12:36:37 UTC